Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

[Posted May 27, 2010 by corbet]

Google has asked the Open Source Initiative to delay its consideration of the WebM license (requested by Bruce Perens) for a couple of weeks; the company has also requested some changes in how the OSI does business. "This might sound strident, but I think that OSI needs to be more open about its workings to retain credibility in the space." The resulting discussion, unsurprisingly, seems mostly to be focused on the relative blackness of various pots and kettles; those who are interested can read the full thread.

Pots and kettles

Posted May 27, 2010 14:38 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (3 responses)

As an added note: I considered not posting this item at all because I would really prefer not to reproduce the "pots calling kettles black" discussion on LWN. Can we just say that there's plenty of scope for bashing either side, but that it's already been done?

Pots and kettles

Posted May 27, 2010 15:49 UTC (Thu) by glikely (subscriber, #39601) [Link]

As far as flame wars go, that one was pretty tame.

Pots and kettles

Posted May 27, 2010 20:27 UTC (Thu) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (1 responses)

I have to admit I have more interest in the "pots calling kettles black" phrase itself. It's the first time I ever encounter it.

Pots and kettles

Posted May 27, 2010 21:31 UTC (Thu) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black :)

Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Posted May 27, 2010 23:51 UTC (Thu) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (6 responses)

"we will want a couple of changes to how OSI does licenses"

Excuse me, but this comes across a imperious.

Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 7:10 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, if OSI want to say that you can only call something "open source" after it's approval by OSI then it must adjust the approval process to satisfy the companies which request said approval. They don't own the "open source" trademark so the arrogance on their side looks as unappealing as arrogance on Google side...

Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by agrover (guest, #55381) [Link] (1 responses)

Well the OSI is the only ones who can declare a license is an OSI-approved (meeting their Open Source Definition) open source license. This gives "OSI-approved open source license" the weight and backbone I think you were right in mentioning that just "open source license" doesn't have on its own.

Where exactly Google says OSI-approved?

Posted May 28, 2010 16:19 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

"OSI mark" is like "organic food" mark. And like with organic food you can have open source without mark and/or "approved" license which is not open source at all (errare humanum est). Yet OSI members claim that "WebM is not currently open source" just because they have not approved the license. This is arrogance to rival Google's and it can only be justified if the support for OSI mark is absolutely unanimous. As the discussion shows it's not even close to being true.

Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 8:26 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (2 responses)

Note that OSI can't stop you from claiming something is "open source": they don't have the trademark for that.

Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 14:27 UTC (Fri) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] (1 responses)

True, but not accurate. Yes, OSI can't stop you from claiming that something is "open source", but we (the community) can, by insisting that the Open Source Definition is *the* definition. And there is still a route for purchasers of a fauxpen source product to claim fraud if something does not meet industry standards.

Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 14:50 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

And whose interpretation of the OSD is the correct interpretation?

Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Posted May 28, 2010 4:35 UTC (Fri) by dkk (guest, #50184) [Link] (3 responses)

No doubt it's been mentioned elsewhere but why didn't Google just use the apache license that their patent clause seems to be heavily lifted from (clause 3)?

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Posted May 28, 2010 5:26 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (2 responses)

See the WebM FAQ, question "Why didnt you use the Apache license?".

Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Posted Jun 3, 2010 13:24 UTC (Thu) by dkk (guest, #50184) [Link] (1 responses)

"Whoever filed the litigation would still be able to use the software they are suing over and still be in compliance with the license"

is this really so big a deal?

Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Posted Jun 3, 2010 14:51 UTC (Thu) by hadess (subscriber, #24252) [Link]

Most certainly.

Imagine a hardware manufacturer, or software vendor that sells a product with WebM support (eg. through YouTube integration). File a lawsuit against Google because WebM infringes on some patent, but keep on shipping products with WebM support.

That would keep litigators in their closets if WebM has any traction at that point.